• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

October Surprise: Regime Change in Iran?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
The ayatollah has a scapegoat in ahmedinajad. once the president is gone, then shit will hit the fan.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
So we basically commit financial terrorism against an entire nation in order to " punish " a few at the top?
Ummm, no. We're doing it to discourage their development of a nuclear weapon and the subsequently inevitable Middle East arms race (and instability) that would follow, period.

"Financial terrorism"? Glad to see that you're still an idiot...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Ummm, no. We're doing it to discourage their development of a nuclear weapon and the subsequently inevitable Middle East arms race (and instability) that would follow, period.

"Financial terrorism"? Glad to see that you're still an idiot...
Not only that but this is a consequence of the Iranian leaderships decisions. It's not like this was a surprise, nor did they have to play the game. This was the Ayatollahs choice.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
They may vote in Iran, but they dont count the votes. The Mullahs just deicide who they like the best. It is all an illusion. Lets see what happens during the next election in Iran.

If the whole economy is based on oil and weapons, then maybe it is time to start some real inustry in Iran and quit supporting terrorists. This is a big problem in the middle east. Their only industry is killing each other.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2012/10/02/iran-currency-plunge-an-omen-for-change/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/10/ahmadinejads-camerman-defected-during-his-un-visit/57447/



Bin Laden, Gaddaffi, now the Ayatollahs...

As I've said previously, Romney plays checkers at the level of a child who learned the rules of the game a few minutes ago. Obama, Clinton, and Bernanke, multi-dimensional chess at the level of grand master.

:ninja:
Perhaps we can get a comment on the brilliance of Obama's foreign policy from Chris Stevens. Oh, wait . . .

I think you vastly overestimate the planning and capabilities of your government. The Arab Spring was nearly wholly self-initiated and propelled. It was wonderful of some of NATO to assist in Lebanon and to a lesser extent in Egypt and Syria, but they were reactions, not actions.
With Feralkid's correction,exactly right. To be fair, this would be true of any American President. American Presidents do not drive revolution in Muslim and/or Middle Eastern countries, they merely play someone who does on TV.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
Obama still has to run the country, while campaigning for re-election.

And there are lots of outside forces that want to take advantage of the ongoing campaign to hurt the U. S. for their own gain.

There has been a tremendous amount of turmoil around the world last four years, but nothing has spiraled out of control like financial crisis in 2008 under stewardship of George "Nero" Bush.

Can't prove a counter-factual, but it speaks very, very highly of the skill and wisdom of President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

We'd be back in the Stone Age right now if Dubya was still in control.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
As I've said previously, Romney plays checkers at the level of a child who learned the rules of the game a few minutes ago. Obama, Clinton, and Bernanke, multi-dimensional chess at the level of grand master.

:ninja:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INmqvibv4UU&feature=related

Bernanke a grand master eh? I guess you could be right if you are implying that he is working for the banksters at the expense of America......

Anyone who implies that Bernanke is a grand master playing multi-dimensional chess is clearly ignorant or living in an alternate reality.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
I don't believe it was the housing bubble per se that caused stock market crash.

I think it was unexpected and not sufficiently telegraphed in advance to Wall Street collapse of shadow banking system (you know, George "Nero" Bush either chopping wood on his ranch or riding his bicycle, contently thinking we are buying low and selling high, when world around him burns to the ground) that Lehman Brothers caused that triggered the financial panic. Lehman itself didn't prepare for bankruptcy, and the actual bankruptcy was going smoothly until, IIRC, a hiccup occurred in some senior unsecured debt that resulted in lots of hedge fund managers suddenly seeing their money get vaporized into oblivion right in front of their eyes. Panic then ensued.
LIQUIDITY CRISIS

The volume and level of re-hypothecation suggests a frightening alternative hypothesis for the current liquidity crisis being experienced by banks and for why regulators around the world decided to step in to prop up the markets recently. To date, reports have been focused on how Eurozone default concerns were provoking fear in the markets and causing liquidity to dry up.

Most have been focused on how a Eurozone default would result in huge losses in Eurozone bonds being felt across the world’s banks. However, re-hypothecation suggests an even greater fear. Considering that re-hypothecation may have increased the financial footprint of Eurozone bonds by at least four fold then a Eurozone sovereign default could be apocalyptic.

U.S. banks direct holding of sovereign debt is hardly negligible. According to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), U.S. banks hold $181 billion in the sovereign debt of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. If we factor in off-balance sheet transactions such as re-hypothecations and repos, then the picture becomes frightening.


http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Securities/Insight/2011/12_-_December/MF_Global_and_the_great_Wall_St_re-hypothecation_scandal/

(and yes, I realize this specific quote is talking about Greece / Europe from last winter, but I believe same issue was playing out as in 2008, except financial markets were utterly prepared for shock in 2008, and there was no adult supervision in 2008, while Europe ultimately did have adult supervision when it counted)
"In America it is the wholesale funded institutions that are in the most trouble. Think Bear Stearns, Lehman, Fannie, Freddie. They are in diabolical trouble.

The funding is leaving them. It does not matter whether rates are 0 or 10 – the funding is still going."


Wholesale Funding Crisis: http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2008/07/deflation-and-bank-bailouts-in-japan.html

Money Market Funds as Shadow Banking Conduits: http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2012/03/your-bank-fiduciary-or-predator.html
IIRC, Frontline's episode on Wall Street crisis stated that their models didn't take into effect a 25% drop in value of collateral upon which whole rickety global financial system was built.

If all it were was "subprime", then as Larry Kudlow used to crow, subprime only represents 15% of GDP and can cause a mild recession, at worst...

Even if economy doesn't start to grow back at potential capacity (3.5% real GDP or so?) under Bernanke's remaining term, I think history will treat him very very well because of the Depression and spiral of Debt Deflation that he was (up to this point successfully) able to avoid.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
I don't believe it was the housing bubble per se that caused stock market crash.

I think it was unexpected and not sufficiently telegraphed in advance to Wall Street collapse of shadow banking system (you know, George "Nero" Bush either chopping wood on his ranch or riding his bicycle, contently thinking we are buying low and selling high, when world around him burns to the ground) that Lehman Brothers caused that triggered the financial panic. Lehman itself didn't prepare for bankruptcy, and the actual bankruptcy was going smoothly until, IIRC, a hiccup occurred in some senior unsecured debt that resulted in lots of hedge fund managers suddenly seeing their money get vaporized into oblivion right in front of their eyes. Panic then ensued.
IIRC, Frontline's episode on Wall Street crisis stated that their models didn't take into effect a 25% drop in value of collateral upon which whole rickety global financial system was built.

If all it were was "subprime", then as Larry Kudlow used to crow, subprime only represents 15% of GDP and can cause a mild recession, at worst...

Even if economy doesn't start to grow back at potential capacity (3.5% real GDP or so?) under Bernanke's remaining term, I think history will treat him very very well because of the Depression and spiral of Debt Deflation that he was (up to this point successfully) able to avoid.
Oh good lord, where do I even start?

I don't have nearly enough time to point out all of the absurdly wrong assumptions you have made tonight so I am saving this spot for the morning.

One questions though, what does the "stock market crash" have to do with anything? As long as the stock market is doing good, regardless of all else, we are in good shape? Hell, the market has been doing pretty damn good lately, the rest of us not so much but so long as Wall Street is doing good, in your opinion, we have no economic worries?
 

AlienCraft

Lifer
Nov 23, 2002
10,539
0
0
October Surprise?
Republican's negotiating with Iran behind the back of the State Dept. You know, like before Reagan was elected. From Dick Cheney's book of tricks.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
October Surprise?
Republican's negotiating with Iran behind the back of the State Dept. You know, like before Reagan was elected. From Dick Cheney's book of tricks.
Reagan's stance got the hostages out.

Carter was going nowhere
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
I don't believe it was the housing bubble per se that caused stock market crash.
First of all, what does the market crash have to do with anything? Second of all, it was the bundling of the house loans, a ton of which were guaranteed not to perform, by the banksters who knew all of this that caused the "crash". The only possible way for their scam to not blow up is if housing continued to gain value at a better than average rate. Any 2nd rate banker knows that it is a mathematical fact that home prices can not raise in price faster than income for any long period of time so the "big boys" either definitely knew this or were absurdly incompetent. I refuse to believe the latter because, as I said, this is very simple math.

I think it was unexpected and not sufficiently telegraphed in advance to Wall Street collapse of shadow banking system (you know, George "Nero" Bush either chopping wood on his ranch or riding his bicycle, contently thinking we are buying low and selling high, when world around him burns to the ground) that Lehman Brothers caused that triggered the financial panic. Lehman itself didn't prepare for bankruptcy, and the actual bankruptcy was going smoothly until, IIRC, a hiccup occurred in some senior unsecured debt that resulted in lots of hedge fund managers suddenly seeing their money get vaporized into oblivion right in front of their eyes. Panic then ensued.
Complete hogwash. Not only were the banksters, and wall street, running the mortgage backed securities scam but they were also all complicit in the derivatives scam. All parties were writing what amounts to an insurance policy, often on something they had no interest in (and therefor now had an interest in seeing it fail) but they nor their counter-parties could actually cover if something bad happened.

The problem wasn't that Lehman collapsed perse, the problem was that all of the other big boys were effectively insolvent once their bad bets (and likely before) started getting called. The head of Citi-group testified in front of Congress that he knew a huge portion of their home lending in a year did not meet their own lending guidelines yet they didn't disclose it and instead had them chopped em up, slapped a triple A rating on them. and sold them.

Frankly, almost none of this has actually been fixed either and neither administration has prosecuted criminal acts that the banksters committed.

IIRC, Frontline's episode on Wall Street crisis stated that their models didn't take into effect a 25% drop in value of collateral upon which whole rickety global financial system was built.
Gee, we are loaning people money for more than the house is worth in some cases, interest only loans with zero down, allowing people to use their houses as piggy banks, all predicated on the idea that house prices will continue to go up MUCH faster than income. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that. No, they knew it was a house of cards but they figured that either they could find some other sucker to be holding the bag when the music stopped or the .gov would be forced to bail them out. Given the amount of leverage they had at the time, I highly doubt they could have survived if home prices simply dropped 5% and all the people who were loaned way more than they could afford defaulted (as they knew was a mathematical certainty when they loaned them the money unless they could refi due to the house going up 10-15% in value).

If all it were was "subprime", then as Larry Kudlow used to crow, subprime only represents 15% of GDP and can cause a mild recession, at worst...
Leverage is a bitch ain't it.
Even if economy doesn't start to grow back at potential capacity (3.5% real GDP or so?) under Bernanke's remaining term, I think history will treat him very very well because of the Depression and spiral of Debt Deflation that he was (up to this point successfully) able to avoid.
Bernanke oversaw what caused this entire mess. HE was the asshole who was supposed to ensure shit like this didn't happen. He is absurdly more at fault than Bush for this blowing up and not only is he basically out of tools in his tool bag but he literally has his hands tied at this point. I whole heatedly disagree that he somehow "saved" us and he damn sure isn't some super genius as the youtube video (and a fuckload more that I don't feel like digging up) shows.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
"Iran&#8217;s 2009 per capita income of over $10,000 would put it among the countries that have a 5.1 to 15.5 percent chance of democratisation if incomes shrink, according to Robertson&#8217;s calculations in March, based on past regime changes in other countries. (Iran itself could argue, reasonably enough, that it is the most democratic country in the region &#8212; everyone over the age of 18, including women, are allowed to vote, though the choice of candidates is restricted)"


Its funny that there is a index that calculates the chance of becoming a Democracy, as though once it happens its instant happyness and peace for everyone in the area. Also the last bit of that paragraph says their candidates are restricted, well so are ours.

Which voucher had a list of names that the American people could vote for in order to nominate a candidate to run for the Democratic/Republican party again ??

Oh thats right we the people have no say in who we have to vote for to become the US President, the choices we do have were narrowed down to Romney/Obama from a list of pre-selected people that the American people did not choose [nobody chose Hilary Clinton either as a possible President]. And those choices all came from behind closed doors, our candidate selections are just as controlled as Iran's. Maybe that is why some some countrie's laugh at us when we talk about open elections, ours are anything but open.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
<snip>

Which voucher had a list of names that the American people could vote for in order to nominate a candidate to run for the Democratic/Republican party again ??

Oh thats right we the people have no say in who we have to vote for to become the US President, the choices we do have were narrowed down to Romney/Obama from a list of pre-selected people that the American people did not choose [nobody chose Hilary Clinton either as a possible President]. And those choices all came from behind closed doors, our candidate selections are just as controlled as Iran's. Maybe that is why some some countrie's laugh at us when we talk about open elections, ours are anything but open.
When/if you go to the polls in Nov; look closely at the ballot.
There are more than 2 choices.

Same as in 2008 and 2004 and back at least 50 years.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
When/if you go to the polls in Nov; look closely at the ballot.
There are more than 2 choices.

Same as in 2008 and 2004 and back at least 50 years.
While true the two big parties have written the rules to make a 3rd part absurdly difficult at this point.
 

PandaBear

Golden Member
Aug 23, 2000
1,375
1
81
They'll turn into another North Korea, but I highly doubt there'll be a revolution or foreign invasion unless they do something stupid with nuke.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
While true the two big parties have written the rules to make a 3rd part absurdly difficult at this point.
That I will agree on.

The original post of mine was reference to that one only had two choices already predetermined.

The "inherited" two party system was a poor carry over from England.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,012
251
126
Does the Presidential ballot also have a write in option? I don't recall.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY